User Reviews (1 - 11 of 60)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

GABE NEWELL EATS TOO MANY DOUGHNUTS! THIS GAME WILL BEAT HL2

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 4 / 53
Date: July 05, 2004
Author: Amazon User

This is not yet out, but it looks like it might give Half Life 2 a run for it's money (if HL2 is out by the time this is released).

Cut down on those doughnuts Gabe Newell!

Your Country Needs Your Trigger Finger!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 185 / 198
Date: August 19, 2004
Author: Amazon User

Ingredients:

Large cup Band of Brothers
Pinch of Command and Conquer
Generous slices of history
Garnish with authenticty

Second World War games are no stranger to the PC - indeed, the First-Person shooter market is positively swamped with them. Medal of Honor, still a fine game after all these years, gave us a crisp, detailed and immersive slice of being a part of the greatest war in history. Battlefield 1942 let us play around with planes, tanks and great big ships in an online sandbox. Recently, Call of Duty assaulted our senses with a vision of war at it's most visceral and crucially, developed the idea that you the player were far from alone on the battlefield. Computer controlled squad-mates charged into the fray along side you, a gratifying and certainly more authentic experience. Now, Brothers in Arms from UbiSoft takes it to the next level with it's implementation of full infantry combat where YOU call the shots. Played principally from a first-person perspective, Brothers in Arms clearly draws from the same graphical pool as it's forebears - gritty, lifelike animation, sound effects that will rattle your speakers and plenty of neat touches - dust, explosions, sun glare and weapon flashes all look and sound great, and WW2 buffs will be able to salivate over a wide range of accurately modeled weaponry. As in other games, Brothers allows the player to commandeer enemy weaponry and gun emplacements in order to give 'Fritz a taste of his own medicine. The player can also duck behind cover or lie prone, which in this mostly-realistic world of bullet damage can make all the difference between a live paratrooper and a letter home to mom. So far, so Call of Duty.

The ace-up-the-sleeve for this game comes in the form of your GI comrades. The player is typically accompanied by 2 computer controlled fire teams. In combat you can give orders and instructions to your troops using a simple, context-sensitive command system. Placing the command cursor, similar to aiming crosshairs, over the terrain instructs your troops to move to that position - once there, they are smart enough to find appropriate cover and begin to scout for enemy positions. Under attack, they automatically return fire, cover each other while reloading, and stay hidden and defended if the going gets really rough. The AI is leaps ahead of previous games, and it's a tremendously satisfying sight to watch your troops take care of themselves without you having to hold their hands. The 2 fire teams are split between a rifle squad, who are able to lay down supressing and covering fire with their M1 Garands and BAR, and an assault element, who, with grenades and machine guns are used to flank and destroy the enemy - a classic infantry tactic that the developers have researched in order to get it spot on. A typical engagement sees you the player supporting one of these 2 teams, which really allows you to play in your own style - budding commandos will enjoy rushing right down the enemy's throat, Thompson Sub blazing, while thinky types will relish the more strategic side of planning the attack.

In order to simulate the intense pre-mission preparation that paratroopers underwent, Ubi has implimented a unique command-map that can be opened during play. The area around the player can be viewed from an aerial vantage point, and partial zoom and rotation allows the player to plot their next move. The map terrain for each mission has been modelled from historical photographs, and the development team actually visited the battlefield to get a feel for how it must have looked. Best of all, each member of your team is based on a real soldier who fought in the campaign. It's at once rewarding and curiously spiritual to know that you are leading representations of real young men into the jaws of death, and when one of your guys goes down in the field, you better believe it tugs at your heart in a way very few games can achieve.

Like most modern games, Brothers in Arms requires a decent computer, with a gig or so of hard-drive space, a quality graphics card and plenty of free ram. However, you don't need a supercomputer to have a great time - my machine is a P4, 1.4, 9600 pro and 512meg of RAM, and this game remains smooth even when the fight gets close and personal. I highly recommend this game to anyone after a fresh take on an exciting genre; one that takes risks, pushes the envelope and offers a powerful, moving, and above all fun experience.

more of the same crap

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 15 / 83
Date: October 25, 2004
Author: Amazon User

I got one question to pose to the ww2 game developers of today. Can you play from the axis side? The answer is almost always, and unequivocably, NO. The only fps game that allows you to commit this apparent hubris, is battlefield 1942, which i have played to the bone. If you don't wanna play as some goodie goodie g.i., fightin' them evil krauts or japs, then you're outta luck. For once i'd like the option of playing as a mean imperial japanese marine, or a tough grizzled german paratrooper. Too much to ask?

Band of Brothers in Arms

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 14 / 16
Date: March 10, 2005
Author: Amazon User

First, in correspondence with the review posing the question of being able to play on the axis side? The answer is yes, in multiplayer. As in most WWII shooters you'll be able to play as an Axis power, which is very much the same with Battlefield 1942 (considering it's a multiplayer game only.) Secondly, this game is a true story. The characters, battles and the stories around them are real. If you've seen HBO's fantastic miniseries "Band of Brothers" then you'll know what you're getting into. It's the story of a different company (Fox Company) of the 101st Airborne Division. Story aside, this game is not even close to "more of the same crap." It's the first game to take Full Spectrum Warrior's team command system and integrate it with a stylistic first person shooter. Gearbox has taken years of gathering information, recon photos, location scouting, weapons firing and study and has handled this game with care. Randy Pitchford has said that he knew that tackling a game in the already heavily populated WWII genre would be a daunting task, but with the help of retired Col. Antal and historians and a great developement team, they feel they've created a game that surpasses all other WWII games. Respected game reviewers IGN and Gamespot have already declared it to be "The Best WWII Shooter of All Time." I, personally can not wait for this game and the experiences of intense combat it's promising.

Cheers!

Great FPS, but not the best tactical war simulation

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 20 / 21
Date: March 17, 2005
Author: Amazon User

Overview: Excellent twist on the old FPS genre. Good use of a simple team based structure, but still fundamentally the same genre, and not the more advanced real time infantry based skirmishing simulation that many were hoping for.

Disclaimers: As of this review, I have played about half the game (patched to 1.02). I havent played it in multiplayer, which may make a big difference.

Like many others, I have become bored of the run of the mill first person shooter. The only thing that changes is the resolution of the 3D models and textures, and theme of the things you shoot.

Something a little more is needed. A bit more thought and a little more to do except play a fairground duck-shoot that is made a little more interesting by the wonders of 3D hardware.

The hype with Brothers in Arms (BIA) was that it modelled real infantry tactics. The general rules of engagement against an enemy can be summarized as 'find him, fix him, flank him, finish him'. BIA models these tactics by allowing you to fix (ie suppress) an enemy by force of fire so that they cannot or dare not shoot back. This allows your team to flank the enemy positions and finish him.

So, I was looking forward to a tactical battle, with both the enemy and my side using real tactics, trying to beat the other not just by having the best guns and highest health, but by real tactical fighting.

Unfortunately, BIA is an old style FPs rather than a real time first person tactical simulation.

The first issue is that the enemy do not use tactics at all - they are your standard dumb and scripted enemy of every other FPS. Only YOU can use real tactics. This means that levels play out the same every time, despite the promises from gearbox that the AI was so good that it would respond to different tactics in different ways. Well, yeah, they might shoot in different directions if you approach from a different direction, but they do not move to meet new threats, and generally dont do anything clever. Put simply, they just feel like standard FPS enemies, each glued to their own part of a heavily scripted and limited map.

The second problem is that the levels are the old 'room based map' affairs, rather than the wide expanses of terrain in something like Far Cry or Operation Flashpoint. Its one of those games where you can see large expanses of fields in either direction, but there is usually a fence or something that magically seems able to stop the strongest tank from getting to the other side. Because of the small map sizes, there isn't really that much in the way of tactical options, and the best flanking route is usally the only flanking option... usually you have to find it and then use it. Flanking is more a puzzle to be solved than a real tactical decision.

Finally, there is a problem with storyline vs gameplay. Gearbox have gone for gameplay (despite the promises of missions based on research of actual skirmishes, and 3D detail scanned from actual footage, the game still feels more fps than deep simulation... the real South of France didn't have tree stopping you moving more than 200 yeards from the start point for a start!.
Much of the cammaraderie of the conflict is lost by sticking to FPS conventions, although the game does try hard to lose some of the old cliches - there is no health packs, etc. But those conventions that are kept tend to kill all that painstaking research and pull you back into FPS-land... fallen soldiers miraciously recovering for the next level is possibly the biggest reality killer for storyline, because you have no emotional link to any of your team - they are just another cog in the puzzle solving that underpins progress. Perhaps not a big deal to some gamers, but for me the title of this game seemed to imply a more thoughtful and real to life interpretation.

But I've still given this game 5 stars, because as a FPS (which is what it really is) it is one of the better efforts out there. Its fun, it makes you think a little more than the average FPS, and the graphics are cool. The team mechanic is simpler than hoped, but it still works, particularly because you cannot complete all but the earliest levels without using your full team. Also, the game plays well out of the box, which gives it mega kudos over certain other games (HL2, I'm talking about you!)

For those that are happy with a good FPS with a bit of simplistic team work thrown in, buy it. Its one of the better games of the genre, and will certainly not look out of place if your game collection has other good FPS games in it (Halo, Half Life 2, Far Cry, and the other WW2 FPS offerings such as MOHH and Call Of Duty).

For those that were hoping for true tactical combat, where the enemy AI feels like a real, directed team, you need to stick with the aging Operation Flashpoint for a little longer.
OFPs graphics may be an aquired taste, and OFP2 may be years off, but theres nothing here that comes anywhere near it for enemy infantry based AI.

Specs:
Works well on my hardware, consisting of Radeon 9800 Pro (overclocked by 10%), standard XP2800 and 1Gig memory (on most modern games, 512Mb can create glitching - 1Gig seems to be the minimum these days). Smooth, playable frame rates at 1280x1024 with all the options on high, so its not a difficult game to play on reasonable hardware.

*** UPDATE 24 March 2005 ***
Having now completed the game, It is obvious that this is a well designed game and a great concept and attention to historic detail. Unfortunately, they picked a rather odd choice in game engine... they use the old Unreal engine (albeit heavily modifed to create better graphics). This makes the reason for all the shortcomings in my main review obvious - technology.

Still, I thoroughly enjoyed the game, its just that I was rather hoping for a slightly different, more tactical and freeroaming game with a less scripted enemy (that doesnt stick to predefined positions), larger levels (to allow a more freeform game rather than the room based one we have), and bigger firefights (the game seems limited in the maximum number of soldiers it can support, and big setpiece battles seem a little cut down from the historic descriptions I have seen in the game and on the web.

S

Try the Red Ochastra Mod.

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 13
Date: March 17, 2005
Author: Amazon User

Relating to the question from that guy asking why he couldn't play the game from the axis side and the guy in his responce to the question...................try Red Orchastra (A mod for Unreal Tournament 2004) it pits you playing either as a Nazi or Russian soldier during the war Hitler unleashed against the Soviet Union in the second WW.

I always play from the Nazi side because they have superior weapons and equipment and really they had superior everything over everybody even the Americans such as ourselves in real life during most of WWII. If you think about it, it took all of us banning together (U.S., Russia, Britain, etc...) to defeat the Germans? That's scary!

Not to say I am for the Nazi's and not the Allies but in a game it should not matter to much really, it only counts in real life.

I always wanted to play as the Germans in Call of Duty. I know you can do this in multiplayer but it would be cool to set up the same single player game from the German side also. I think that would be cool but I would hate to kill Americans because it might have been my grandfather I was shooting at........he was over there somewhere?

I can't wait to get this game and will write a full review on it after I finnish it unlike some that jump-the-gun before it comes out even. Until then take my advise and try the Red Orchastra mod. It's cool!

Dumb Reviewers

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 8 / 18
Date: March 18, 2005
Author: Amazon User

First off, Kyle, a GeForce 4 MX420 is not "a very common video card." In fact, it's an outdated one that can't even handle the best games that are out there today.

Secondly, I don't know what your source of bugs/crashes are, but for the other people reading this, you should go to www.gamerankings.com and search for BiA. Read those reviews too as well as user reviews. Heck, go to any forum and they'll sure be talking about this. I prefer reading forums at hlfallout.net (there is an official thread about this). So far, it's a mixed review with some people liking it and others hating. It's hit or miss with this game.

The graphics are a little old- it's based on the OLD Unreal engine. That sucks. Gee, in hindsight, I should have given this game a three star rating for mediocre. Gameplay gets repetitive after a while, though it's nice to have something a little bit more realistic (in terms of team tactics, layout of battlefield, etc.).

This crap is getting old

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 6 / 25
Date: March 18, 2005
Author: Amazon User

I'm getting really tired of this stuff. At first it was fun, with Medal of Honor and Call of Duty. Then, just like when you chew a bubble gum too much, it starts to lose the taste. Still, I enjoyed Battlefield 1942 a lot.

However, I had enough of this. The 3 games I mentioned above have covered almost every major battle of WWII, from Berlin, to Normandy, to Stalingrad, Tobruk and El Alamein. There's nothing else games can do about WWII. We've seeing it all- except as games where you can play the Axis. (But EA and others care more about marketing and politically correctness, that we'll never see that happen.)

To sum it up, I've blow up way too many Anti-Air guns, rescued too many British prisioners, and stolen too many secret documents. The mentioned games had taken me trough D-Day a couple hundred times. I've had enough of it. It's not fun anymore.

You don't believe me? Then remember my review when you're parachuting into Normandy for the 85457th time, and ask yourself, "Am I playing this because I want to see how it ends and I enjoy it, or am I playing this to justify the money I spent on this and don't really care about what happens?"

For the game developers: Any new ideas?

Technology Issues

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 4 / 24
Date: March 18, 2005
Author: Amazon User

This game has severe technology issues, especially pertaining to video cards. It does not run on certain very common video cards such as the GeForce4 MX 420. I wasted my money on this game that I now cannot play unless I buy and install a brand new video card. I have heard of other problems such as constant crashing, as well. My advice to you would be to research your system specs and make sure you can run the game. Unless you're a tech geek with a ton of customized specs or someone with a very new computer, it probably will give you trouble.

They should rename it "Brothers in Hype".

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 12 / 23
Date: March 19, 2005
Author: Amazon User

I cannot believe how much this game was hyped! It sure paid off, the hype machine keeps rolling with the fanboys on this one. I found Brothers in Arms-PC VERY poor...

They should rename Brothers in Arms to "Brothers in Hype", because thats all this game has, hype, and totally lacks substance and polish. Well its definately a straight console port (A big no-no for PCs). Heres my thoughts so far on Brothers in Arms.

1) The text on the menus is MASSIVE, cartoony, probably because it wasn't converted when ported from console.
2) The controls are very "Console Like".
3) No keys are re-mappable to extra mouse buttons! (ACK)
4) Music is overdone, and voice acting is somewhat average.
5) Overhead RTS mode is quite poorly implemented.
6) Graphics are substandard, 8-bit textures, no shaders, very very dated and blocky.
7) No EAX support that I can find.
8.) Big red dots overtop of enemy destroys immersion.
9) Game is seriously on rails, it even stops you from walking at random times, so it can turn on story elements. (lame)
10) AI is extremely questionable, and sometimes, downright lame.

It might have some good points, but the flaws are so glarring I don't even think I can start to overlook them. This one might have been good on the console, but for a PC its just average - at best. But the hype machine is rolling strong on this one.

I do not recommend this title. Save your money.

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next 

Actions